Tim Cook says he's 'greatly optimistic' about Apple's future at shareholders meeting

Shareholders approved Apple's recommended proposals, shot down two that it recommended against, and asked a range of questions at the company's annual shareholder meeting.

During the online-only meeting, stockholders voted on the election of directors to Apple's Board. The shareholders approved all nominees, which included James Bell, Tim Cook, Al Gore, Andrea Jung, Art Levinson, Ron Sugar, and Sue Wagner.

As far as proposals, shareholders voted yes on the two proposals that Apple recommended and voted against the two proposals that it didn't.

The passing proposals were the re-appointment of Apple's public accounting firm for auditing purposes and the approval of Apple's executive compensation. The two failed proposals, both submitted by shareholders, focused on amending proxy access for director nominations and "improvements" to Apple's executive compensation program.

Apple CEO Tim Cook also offered a recap of the company's progress during 2020, covering most of the same ground as the Cupertino tech giant's first quarter earnings report.

"Apple makes the best, most useful, most innovative, most trusted products out there, and [in 2020], we took that mission to another level," Cook said at the meeting. He added that AirPods Max were "hugely popular" among consumers, and called the HomePod mini a "hit."

Although he didn't offer any additional details about Apple's upcoming products, he did say there are "exciting things" ahead for iPhone and "great things" for its computer lineup.

Cook also offered details on topics ranging from App Store regulation to Apple TV+ when responding to shareholder questions.

On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's stance that it doesn't have a dominant position in any market it competes in.

"While scrutiny is fair, accusations like these fall apart after a reasonable examination of the facts," Cook said, referring to antitrust allegations levied at the company.

Cook also offered color on recent situations like the severe weather in Texas and the debate surrounding economic stimulus plans in the U.S. On the first point, Cook reiterated Apple's donations to relief groups and how it is supporting staffers on the ground. On a stimulus plan, Cook says the "first priority of any stimulus should be about helping people."

The Apple chief executive also shared a tidbit about how the world has changed during the global coronavirus pandemic, and how Apple has not.

"In so many ways, the world has changed, but in fundamental ways, Apple has not," Cook said. "Apple is made up of people who want to spend their lives making things that enrich the lives of others, making them more fulfilled, more creative, and more human.

"We're comfortable saying no to a lot of things and laser focused on the areas where we can have the greatest impact, innovating relentlessly. Technology made by people, for people, and with people's well being in mind," Cook added. "At its best and most hopeful, technology should help us leave the world better than we found it."

Looking ahead to 2021 and beyond, Cook said he feels "greatly optimistic about the future."

"For all of us at Apple, we're thinking deeply as always about how we can help our communities emerge from this stronger, how recovery from this can be fair and equitable, and how all of that can be helped by world-class technology that puts humanity at its heart," the Apple CEO said.

Latest Exclusives

Latest comparisons

20 Comments

22july2013 11 Years · 3736 comments

About 3 years ago

Cook's comments on world events, including Apple's donations to causes, makes me think that Cook has presidential aspirations.

His slogan: "We need a good Cook in the White House."
Alternate slogan: "Let's get Cook'in." (actually, this is decent)

adhaus 3 Years · 8 comments

Because Apple coordinated with Google and Amazon to shut down parler, an app that's popular with a political ideology that the company disagree with, the app store SHOULD be regulated. I was previously a major advocate of the walled garden approach that Apple popularized but now that they've abused the trust I afforded them, I can no longer support them on this matter.

adhaus said:

Because Apple coordinated with Google and Amazon to shut down parler, an app that's popular with a political ideology that the company disagree with, the app store SHOULD be regulated. I was previously a major advocate of the walled garden approach that Apple popularized but now that they've abused the trust I afforded them, I can no longer support them on this matter.

That's a fair point. I empathize. But if someone started regulating Apple's app store, and Apple decided to withdraw its app store completely as its response to regulation, how would you deal with that? How do you force Apple to provide a service that it doesn't want to provide? Since I have no answer to that, I can't join you.

Doesn't the fact that Apple is providing a service like an app store, when it doesn't have to, count for anything?

22july2013 said:

That's a fair point. I empathize. But if someone started regulating Apple's app store, and Apple decided to withdraw its app store completely as its response to regulation, how would you deal with that? How do you force Apple to provide a service that it doesn't want to provide? Since I have no answer to that, I can't join you.

Doesn't the fact that Apple is providing a service like an app store, when it doesn't have to, count for anything?

Again, I had been a huge supporter of the walled garden approach until Apple's coordinated effort to destroy Parler. Their Walled garden approach is genuinely superior... but only if/when it is used to restrict apps for security, decency and also for the platform's overall health (profitability-maintenance) purposes.

Android advocates have traditionally critiqued Apple's approach saying that the walled garden affords them the ability to ban apps without cause. The supposed inferiority argument for Apple's approach has always been presented by the fact that Apple can ban an app because it might compete too successfully with an Apple product. Though that argument always seemed hyperbolic to me, I still defended Apple's approach if only because Apple's ownership of the entire platform affords them the right (morally, technically and legally) to restrict anything even if the ban was for little more than because it competed too well against Apple's products.

Those same android advocates said that I'm arguing against my self-interests but this wasn't true. My self interests are to use a secure platform. Apple's walled garden approach guarantees that. If it means I miss some apps that Apple doesn't approve of, it's a tradeoff I'm more than willing to make and even pay a slight premium for.

All of that defense of the walled garden is predicated on maintaining the health of the overall platform but we all need to admit that Apple DOES walk a moral grey line that requires a lot of trust... it requires that we trust that Apple not abuse that power. I defended Apple for years as they gave little reason to think they would abuse it. But they DID abuse it and not only did they abuse it but that abuse was egregious.

A mere WILLINGNESS to ban an app solely for political and/or social engineering reasons is an egregious-enough offense that they be regulated... but Apple actually followed through on it. There's no walking this back. This is not something they can even express a mea culpa, undo the ban and all is made right.

If regulation means Apple felt compelled to take their proverbial app store ball and go home... then so be it. A technological transition to a web-server-based app standard would inevitably occur. Such a transition would mean political speech and social engineering could no longer occur. (Or at least be less easy). Affecting that kind fo change is far FAR more important than maintaining the platform's app store profitability.

Rayz2016 8 Years · 6957 comments

adhaus said:

Because Apple coordinated with Google and Amazon to shut down parler, an app that's popular with a political ideology that the company disagree with, the app store SHOULD be regulated. I was previously a major advocate of the walled garden approach that Apple popularized but now that they've abused the trust I afforded them, I can no longer support them on this matter.

It’s a tricky I one, but in the end no one can force any store to carry a product that goes against their principles. I wouldn’t want to be forced to support racist bigotry and insurrection on my website, and so Apple shouldn’t be forced to support in its stores.